I hate to criticize your source on this one, but “The Indians of Canada, D. Jenness (1934)” is not going to be a reliable authority on native american culture. At that point in history we still had to deal with shit like Just One Drop policies, and although Jenness was a great deal less shitty than many others at the time, the cultures he had access to weren’t representative of the cultures as they stood pre-genocides.
I’ll take your word for it, just looked it up since I knew little about them.
I’m sure they lied plenty as justification for scummy behavior but on this particular topic it looks like a genuine and objective description to me.
He could’ve made up stuff to depict them as violent savages but that isn’t the case here.
Positive racism is still racism - all Asians are good at math, all black people are good at sports, all native american cultures were noble and didn’t have crime. At the very least a canadian anthropologist in 1934, while they may not have been actively perpetuating the cultural genocide, would still have been describing cultures in the midst of being genocided.
This noble savage stuff sounds great, but native americans not culturally monolithic so these sweeping generalizations just aren’t accurate.
Is there no other conclusion than racism, positive or negative?
As I said and AFAIK " it looks like a genuine and objective description to me".
“in the midst of being genocided” does not define the perspective of every individual.
I’m sure there were positive, negative and neutral articles written about jews during WW2.
Very few would have been written by the german government, though.
Again, no, I do not think that Diamond Jenness was necessarily themselves racist - I do think that what they were writing about were cultures actively being genocided by the institution they were working for, at a time period where native people were barely considered human, and the perspective they present will be necessarily colored by that.
I hate to criticize your source on this one, but “The Indians of Canada, D. Jenness (1934)” is not going to be a reliable authority on native american culture. At that point in history we still had to deal with shit like Just One Drop policies, and although Jenness was a great deal less shitty than many others at the time, the cultures he had access to weren’t representative of the cultures as they stood pre-genocides.
I’ll take your word for it, just looked it up since I knew little about them.
I’m sure they lied plenty as justification for scummy behavior but on this particular topic it looks like a genuine and objective description to me.
He could’ve made up stuff to depict them as violent savages but that isn’t the case here.
Positive racism is still racism - all Asians are good at math, all black people are good at sports, all native american cultures were noble and didn’t have crime. At the very least a canadian anthropologist in 1934, while they may not have been actively perpetuating the cultural genocide, would still have been describing cultures in the midst of being genocided.
This noble savage stuff sounds great, but native americans not culturally monolithic so these sweeping generalizations just aren’t accurate.
Is there no other conclusion than racism, positive or negative?
As I said and AFAIK " it looks like a genuine and objective description to me".
“in the midst of being genocided” does not define the perspective of every individual.
I’m sure there were positive, negative and neutral articles written about jews during WW2.
Very few would have been written by the german government, though.
Again, no, I do not think that Diamond Jenness was necessarily themselves racist - I do think that what they were writing about were cultures actively being genocided by the institution they were working for, at a time period where native people were barely considered human, and the perspective they present will be necessarily colored by that.